Poll: Who has been the WORST President in United States History?

[Silver Bullet]

From Backwoods Home Magazine :

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html

Who Were the Best and Worst U.S. Presidents ?

...

Okay, I’ll bite. Who do you think were the greatest Presidents?”

Mac didn’t think but a second and said, “Oh, I guess I’d take most—maybe all—of the first 15 Presidents and put them at or near the top...”

“Who was the 16th President?” I asked.

“Lincoln...and just a few of the postbellum Presidents from the 19th century like Arthur, Cleveland, McKinley...”

“...and I’d add a handful of the Republican Presidents from the 20th century.”

“Reagan, Bush...?” Dave asked.

“No, not them. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover...that’s it, though I’d put Ford higher on the list than any President since Hoover.”

“Ford?” Bill asked. “He was a do-nothing President. He was in the House of Representatives for 22 years and he never even introduced a bill.”

“What’s wrong with that?”

I think we were all a little startled by Mac’s response.

“If you want an activist President, you’re probably a Democrat,” he said, “although you may also be a modern-day Republican. If you want a President who leaves the people alone, you’re probably an old-time Republican, a 19th century Democrat, or—and this is more likely—a modern-day Libertarian.”

Bill said, “Most intellectuals think guys like Wilson and F.D.R. belong at the top. In fact, I’ve seen several lists where F.D.R. is at the very top.”

“Why do you think he’s there?” Mac asked without looking away from the pan.

“Well, he got us out of Hoover’s Depression...”

“I don’t know why people call it Hoover’s Depression,” Mac said. “Hoover was President for only three and a half years of the Great Depression while F.D.R. was President for eight of them, right up until the beginning of World War Two, when the Depression ‘officially’ ended. In fact, under Roosevelt, and in spite of all his programs, the Depression deepened. Five years into his Presidency, in 1938, it was worse than ever. You can’t blame that on Hoover; a Democratic President and Democratic Congress had been in power for five years. In fact, many economists have fielded strong arguments that show that F.D.R.’s meddling may have actually made the Depression worse.”

“So you base your criteria on how the country is doing economically,” Bill said.

“No, although I’ll admit I’m a financial conservative. But most of my criteria is based on the Constitution.” He started taking the fried fillets out of the pan.

Dave said, “Then your criteria is...” and he hesitated for a second.

“How closely a President adheres to the Constitution,” Mac said finishing Dave’s sentence for him.

“But I get the impression Lincoln’s not on your list,” I said.

He shook his head as he lifted some fish from the frying pan with a spatula.

“Come and get it,” he said as he took more fillets and dropped them into the hot oil.

“Why isn’t he on your list?” I asked.

“Lincoln was the first President to violate the Constitution wholesale. Before him, every President tried to live within its framework.

“What was different about the first 15 Presidents?” Dave asked.

“The first 15 Presidents all operated within the framework of the Constitution—with a few, though noteworthy, exceptions.

“But more importantly, some of those Presidents are unfairly maligned today because they chose to act within the framework of the Constitution.”

“The one who stands out most is James Buchanan, the President who preceded Lincoln.”

“What did he do?”

“It’s what he didn’t do. He refused to act when South Carolina seceded from the Union. That secession was followed by the secession of the 10 other states after Lincoln was elected, and they went on to form the Confederacy.”

“Why didn’t he do something?”

“He said there was no constitutional basis for using force to keep them in the Union. And, actually, he was right.”

“So, what did Lincoln do?”

“He threatened military force to stop it.”

“But he had to,” Bill said.

“Why?”

“To free the slaves.”

“The Civil War wasn’t about slavery; it was about preserving the Union. It wasn’t about the Constitution and it wasn’t about freedom. And I’m not sure it was worth killing half a million people to keep the country intact just because some wanted to leave. Keep in mind that the South was not a foreign invader.”

“That’s how many died during the Civil War?” I asked.

“That’s the total,” Mac replied. “And after hundreds of thousands died to keep it together, there’s still nothing in the Constitution that says states can’t leave.

“The issue of slavery,” he added, “may have helped bring on secession, but it wasn’t the reason for the war.”

“I think you’re wrong,” I said. “Everything I learned in school said that war was fought to free the slaves.”

He crossed the office and picked up Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and leafed through it. “Might as well quote Lincoln himself,” he said. “In a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, Lincoln wrote: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

“Ending slavery was a noble purpose, but the war was fought over secession. Had the 11 states that made up the Confederacy not seceded, neither Lincoln nor the Congress would have sent troops into the South to end slavery. Slavery would simply have died its natural death as it did in other countries.”

“What about the Emancipation Proclamation?” I asked.

“The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in those states under control of the Confederacy. It did not free any of the slaves in the border states where the slaves were owned by Union sympathizers.”

“Really?”

“Yes, read it.”

“You say he violated the Constitution?” Dave asked.

“He tromped all over the very document that makes this country worthwhile and has made it different from any other country that has ever existed in history.”

“Give me some examples,” Dave said.

“In creating the state of West Virginia, he violated Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution which says the federal government cannot form states from the jurisdiction of any of the states without the consent of the state legislature and the Congress.

“The taxes he levied to support the war, and the draft he imposed on the North were unconstitutional.

“The Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights were suspended. He summarily imprisoned critics and even had an arrest warrant written to jail the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, because he not only ruled that many of Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional, he was also a vocal Lincoln critic.”

“But these things had to be done; otherwise, the United States wouldn’t be as it is now,” Bill said.

“Then you would have to say taking land from the Indians, breaking our treaties with them, and the kidnapping of Africans to bring them to this continent as forced, unpaid labor was okay because, without them, the United States wouldn’t be what it is today.”

“At the end of the last century, William Jennings Bryan single-handedly changed the course of the Democratic Party by stepping away from Constitutional law and slipping into a kind of populism that was sweeping the country. Then it changed again in the 1920s when fascism swept the world.”

“How’s that?” I asked.

Adopting fascism

“The Democrats—and, since the 1950s, the Republicans—adopted fascist policies.”

“Oh, come on,” Bill said. “Are you saying the Democrats are Fascists? Fascists are right wingers.”

“Despite the fact we identify fascism with Hitler and Mussolini, they were just two people among many who embraced fascist policies.”

“What is fascism?” I asked

“If you look at capitalism as the concept of private ownership, and communism as no private ownership with everything owned by the state, fascism recognizes private ownership but the use of private property is directed by the state.”

“Can you give us a concrete example?” Dave asked.

“The environmentalists wanting the state to direct the use of industry and private property is a fascist concept,” Mac said.

Bill slammed his hand on the table. “You’re saying the environmental movement is a fascist movement?”

“If the word fascist bothers you, Bill, and it is now a word that carries a lot of emotional baggage because of the Nazis, then substitute another word, but the philosophy is the same.

“I believe that if it hadn’t been for Hitler, today’s bureaucrats and politicians would have no problem admitting the use of fascist policies. Before World War Two, men like F.D.R. and Winston Churchill openly admired Benito Mussolini and his fascist government. What they admired was the economics of fascism and its approach to property rights.”

Bill just shook his head, but Dave said, “When the Clintons first took office...”

“Only one of them did,” Mac said and Dave laughed.

“Okay, when Bill did, they wanted to institute a national health plan and explained it would be managed competition. Is that fascism?”

“That’s right.”

“Fascism is about zero tolerance and persecution,” Bill said.

“Fascism is just an economic theory, Bill. It’s not about concentration camps any more than communism is about gulags and Siberia. Hitler didn’t need fascism any more than Stalin or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia needed communism to carry out their atrocities.”

“So, what if you had to make a list where you rated the Presidents? What would it look like?” Dave asked.

“I’d organize my list in five tiers, with the top tier being the Presidents I thought were the best in maintaining the values we find in the Constitution, and the bottom tier being those who ‘took the law into their own hands.’

“In each tier, I’ll just list the Presidents chronologically:

“On the first tier I would put almost any one of the first 15 Presidents, and a few others. This would include:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Rutherford Hayes
James Garfield
Chester Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Howard Taft

“On the second tier I’d put:

John Adams
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant

“On the third I’d put:

Harry Truman
John Kennedy
Gerald Ford

On the fourth:

Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight Eisenhower
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Bill Clinton

“And at the bottom I’d put:

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Roosevelt

 

[Shempf]

You forgot Kennedy in the poll

 

[nate45]

Good post

“And at the bottom I’d put:

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Roosevelt

Thats right where they belong, if adherence to the constitution is the criteria, which it should always be.

 

[hkg3]

Maybe we should revisit this topic AFTER the election.

 

[HJB]

The big question here is: Once a state joins the union (United States), can it ever withdrawn from the union? Many of us "Lincoln haters" say that any state can leave the union whenever it chooses, for whatever reasons. Nothing in the US Constitution says that once a state is a member of the union, it can never leave. That is for each state to decide for itself. Many of us despise Lincoln because he used a level of violence never seen on this side of the world to prevent states from exercising their rights, which included the right to leave the union of states.

The Constitution does not make secession legal. The Articles of Cofederation made the Union "perpetual" and the Constitution then formed an even "more perfect union." It was never meant to be a Union-when-convenient.

Lincoln "used a level of violence"? The Confederates were shooting too. Lincoln and Congress tried to avoid a shooting war, with last minute compromises and assurances regarding Slavery. But it wasn't enough, and the Confederates decided to start shooting. I think nothing short of Nationalizing Slavery would have appeased the southerners at that point.

 

[nate45]

When the sovereign states created a federal government as their agent with the Articles of Confederation they made a point of maintaining their independent status. As defined in Article 1, Section II: "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Although the state delegations that adopted the Articles hoped that the Union created by them would be perpetual, they seceded from the Articles after just six years and dropped the phrase "perpetual Union" from the new Constitution.

Apologists for centralized governmental power dishonestly dwell on the preamble of the Constitution which reads, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . ." They do this in order to argue that the government formed by the Constitution was created by "the whole people" and not the sovereign states. But the reason why the states were not listed individually in the Preamble is that when it was written it was not known which states would ratify the Constitution. Thus, it was left as a generalized "We the People . . ." It is nothing more than a semantic artifact.

No less a figure than James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist 39 that the Constitution was to be ratified by the people "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong" (emphasis added). He also stated that the federal government gets all of its authority from the sovereign states and not the "whole people." The "whole people" who resided in the states stretching from Maine to Georgia at the time had nothing at all to do with the ratification of the Constitution. It was ratified by state political conventions (not state legislatures). Madison continued on to say that each state ratifying the Constitution "is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."

 

[HJB]

Nate, a discussion of the legality of secession takes the thread in a direction not originally intended. Yes, the constitution never explicitly says it is illegal. It also never says it is legal. It never says anything about it. Lincoln and most other Americans, including unionists in the South, felt Secession was not legal and an act of rebellion.

There are writings on Secession by founders and others, like Jackson after the 1832 crisis. They were not pro-secession.

 

[nate45]

HJB

Its all academic anyway, we weren't there and only have the historical record to go by.

I want to make it clear though that I don't 'hate' Lincoln or the present day USA, I am however big on adherence to the constitution. There are those who say that it is ok to subvert the constitution if its expedient and suits their purposes. I don't agree no matter what the reasoning is. There is a process for changing the constitution built into it.

For instance the socialist policies and programs of FDR might be considered 'constitutional' as long as the decisions and opinions of the leftist he appointed to the SCOTUS stand, but a careful and objective reading of the constitution reveals that they and it do not agree.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

They have an axe to grind, and they always either Pro-confederate, or anarcho-capitalists. Sorry if the word "hate" seems strong to you but it's the best word.

i guess i kinda got this exact feel out of your original post, youa re pretty much generalizing all of us and throwing us in the wacko bin. instead of recognizing there can be more than one reason to hold a purticular view. its like saying i am an anarchist because i believe we have the right to bear arms. alot of nut jobs love guns as much(or more) than i do but i hold nothing in commen with them.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Admiring the Constitution is grounds for hating Lincoln? How?...

he trampled on some of the most fundimental points of the Constitution, as already pointed out in this thread. he did not respect the freedom of the press, of the supreme court, of congress, or of freedom of speech. in my opinion that makes him a failure as a president.

Let's just assume it was about slavery. The southern states should still have been left to decide for themselves whether to stay in the union. Besides, with the vast majority of western nations taking a negitive view of slavery at that time, economic boycotts of slave produced materials would led to an end of slave labor. Don't forget that slavery was coming to a peaceful end in the rest of the western hemisphere during that time

. exactly

Lincoln and Congress tried to avoid a shooting war, with last minute compromises and assurances regarding Slavery. But it wasn't enough, and the Confederates decided to start shooting. I think nothing short of Nationalizing Slavery would have appeased the southerners at that point.

First of all lincoln did NOT try to avoid fighting, if he was a prudent man he would have recognized the sensativity of the situation and would have tried to find peacefull means to reslove it. instead he implaced more tariffs
and reinforced SUmpter which he KNEW would start fighting. Secondly Congress did not give any kind of effort to resolve anything as it was not in session at the time, and as Lincoln withheld them from being called to session until months later when the war was well under way.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Nate, a discussion of the legality of secession takes the thread in a direction not originally intended

well it could help us establish whether or not lincoln was a good president. if it was thire right and he denied them it that would prove otherwise.

whether they had the right or not, they already felt that thier state rights had already been destroyed, making the constitution null anyhow.

 

[apr1775]

The Constitution does not make secession legal. The Articles of Cofederation made the Union "perpetual" and the Constitution then formed an even "more perfect union." It was never meant to be a Union-when-convenient.

Lincoln "used a level of violence"? The Confederates were shooting too. Lincoln and Congress tried to avoid a shooting war, with last minute compromises and assurances regarding Slavery. But it wasn't enough, and the Confederates decided to start shooting. I think nothing short of Nationalizing Slavery would have appeased the southerners at that point

.

Read the Tenth Amendment and then tell me how secession is illegal.

Of course the Confederates were shooting too, they were invaded. Now if you consider Ft Sumter to be evidence of the South starting the war, go look at the casualty count. Lincoln did make promises to not interfer with slavery in the states in which it existed, which kind of suggest that's not the primary reason for secession. What is meant by "Nationalizing Slavery" anyway?

By "level of violence" I am refering to the way Lincoln's armies took the war to the civilian population. Many thousands had their houses and everything they owned burned, and then left to die. Ever read about Sherman and Sheridan? Is this morally superior slavery, especially considering that many of the victims weren't slave owners.

 

[HJB]

he trampled on some of the most fundimental points of the Constitution

Lincoln did not trample on the constitution. The usual example is suspending Habeas Corpus, but that is allowed for in time of invasion or rebellion. Congress also passed a resolution suspending Habeas Corpus in 1863, and Jefferson Davis both suspended Habeas Corpus and declared Martial Law. But for some reason, only Lincoln is ever mentioned.

instead he implaced more tariffs

At the time of secession, tariffs were at the lowest rates in decades. And the Morill tariff was signed into law by Buchanan not Lincoln.

Secondly Congress did not give any kind of effort to resolve anything

The Corwin amendment, brought up in February '61 and generally approved by Lincoln though he was not inaugarated yet, guaranteed that the Federal government would not interfere with slavery in the states that already had it.

What is meant by "Nationalizing Slavery" anyway?

In the 1850's, the slave states worked to expand slavery into both the territories and into the free states, with the Kansas-Nebraska act and Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave laws. The slave states wanted to use the power of the Federal Government to force slavery down the throat of the whole country.

The South would have defeated Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election if the democratic party had not split into two factions. The northern democrats, with Lincolns old nemesis Douglas as the candidate, were just fine with slavery spreading to the territories... as long as the settlers in each territory voted to allow slavery. The southern democrats split off because the question of slavery, they felt, should not be left to a popular vote, but forced on the territory. Lincoln would have been defeated by Douglas if the democrats had stayed united.

Lincoln did make promises to not interfer with slavery in the states in which it existed, which kind of suggest that's not the primary reason for secession

Lincoln knew that the constitution did not allow him to abolish slavery, he was just re-affirming the obvious in order to defuse the situation. Secession was all about slavery.

By "level of violence" I am refering to the way Lincoln's armies took the war to the civilian population.

Sherman destroyed the infrastructure that supported the enemy military. There really was no significant murdering or raping or any other violent crimes against civilians. It is routinely exaggerated. Shermans march was much more of a psychological dagger through the South than a physically destructive one.

 

[Hugh Damright]

The slave states wanted to use the power of the Federal Government to force slavery down the throat of the whole country.

That seems way off to me. I am not aware that the slave States plotted to force slavery onto free States. I think the slave States wanted slavery left up to each State i.e. they wanted the US Constitution which they had consented to. But didn't the feds start putting restrictions on new States coming into the Union? And didn't this defy the Constitution because new States were supposed to be equal with existing States? And wasn't the intent to rig it so that the slave States would be outnumbered and lose their political power? I reckon it was the federal government that tried to force something down the throat of the whole Country, while the South wanted nothing more than the US Constitution which the whole Country had consented to.

Secession was all about slavery.

Secession was all about yankees not being able to abide by anything but their own will. Jefferson warned in 1800 that is was going to be very hard for us to have constitutional government in a Union with yankees when they want nothing more than to consolidate the States into one sovereignty and to rule over it like a monarchy.

 

[.300H&H]

LBJ was a creep. There's the story about hinm boarding a helicopter, and boarding the wrong one. The young soldier guarding the right helicopter said said to LBJ, 'M. President here's your helicopter sir.' LBJ walked out from the helicopter he had mistakenly visited and then said to the soldier, ' Son, they are all my helicopters.' LBJ was a real creep ie. all that Lady Bird and Lucy Bird crap ie. everybody being an LBJ. He really laid an egg in Vietnam.

 

[HJB]

That seems way off to me. I am not aware that the slave States plotted to force slavery onto free States. I think the slave States wanted slavery left up to each State i.e. they wanted the US Constitution which they had consented to

The 1850's started with Fugitive Slave acts. This forced everyone in the free states to become accomplices in Slavery, with the Federal government threatening fines or jail to those who did not cooperate.

The Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854 scrapped the old Missouri compromise which kept slavery expansion in the territories below the 36'30 line. Now all territories could be slave, and pro-slavery interests forced the Lecompton constitution in Kansas over the objections of pro-freedom settlers.

The Dred Scott decision in 1856 ruled that a person could buy a slave in a slave state, then move to a free state and keep that slave as property! This Supreme Court decision, in effect, made the free states into slave states.

Lincoln had left politics to go back to practicing law. The K-N act and then the Dred Scott decision infuriated him so that he re-entered the public arena. He met Douglas in the famous debates first as a private citizen, not as a candidate. Then he challenged Douglas for the Senate and lost, but he did get himself noticed nation-wide.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Again, one must wonder where people develop this notion that secession was not first and foremost about the preservation of slavery.

The various Declarations of Secession (those states that made them), talk first and mainly about preserving slavery. The majority of those documents declare slavery the driving reason for secession somewhere within the first four sentences of the document.

Doesn't that tell us something?

As gun people, we are continually pointing out that the Founders considered the RKBA important enough to make it the 2nd "bullet comment" in the Bill of Rights. Second only to speech, religion, and the right of public assembly.

Are we not to deduce a similar conclusion from the Declarations of Secession and the prominence of slavery in those documents?

Yes, not every state drafted such a Declaration. Some issued only an Ordinance of Secession. A simple statement.

But that leaves us the debates and speeches at the assemblies that voted on secession. The speeches given by prominent men of each state to the those assemblies are a matter of public record. Plenty of them on the internet. And what those men were speaking about was slavery.

Not tariffs or taxes. Not "states' rights" in the context of anything other than slavery. That was the state right that incensed them.

Nor was it merely anger over the economic aspects of slavery. For every speech or document you can find about the economic necessity of slavery, you can find a speech or document expressing horror that blacks might rise above their station and begin carrying themselves on the streets as if they were...regular human beings.

Let us not make secession into something other than what the secessionists themselves have told us it was about. Let us not rewrite history when the documents of it lie before us.

I'll grant that Lincoln and the North did not initiate the war to abolish slavery. That point is inarguable. It has never been necessary to dwell on what motivated Lincoln. For me, the results of his actions are more important than what induced him to undertake those actions. I don't require him to be a saint or pure of motivation.

His actions created the United States that I now live in.

And my love of this country is unconditional.

When people express regret that America wasn't split asunder with a hideous apartheid state on our southern border, I can only express bewilderment.

 

[nate45]

That point is inarguable. It has never been necessary to dwell on what motivated Lincoln. For me, the results of his actions are more important than what induced him to undertake those actions. I don't require him to be a saint or pure of motivation.

This is it in a nutshell, you think the ends justify the means, that trampling states rights, sovereignty and the voluntary nature of the constitutional union was ok. That the deaths of 620,000 citizens of those states was worth it, worth the creation of the overbearing centralized state we have today , a state that Marx would love and Madison, Hamilton and Jay would loathe.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Excuse me sir, but both sides in that conflict were prepared to let the ends justify the means.

As I've already pointed out, secession was about the preservation of slavery.

Without the desire to preserve slavery, there would have been no secession and no war.

Again, their official documents, statements and speeches, even editorial pieces in newspapers declare in no uncertain terms that the issue driving secession was slavery.

I know that this irritates people living today. People who want the romanticism. The righteousness of "the cause".

Romanticism and nostalgia is not served by dwelling on what was ultimately the craven, self-serving nature of the secession.

You'd be hard pressed to find a Confederate who upon winning the war and perpetuating a repugnant apartheid state well into the 20th Century would say that the ends did not justify the means.

And if you think Franklin, Hamilton, Adams or Washington would've been proud of our own little South Africa in this hemisphere, I think you underestimate those men.

As far as me justifying a means to an end, I'll only restate that my love of this country as it is now is unconditional. And I would not have had it any other way.

 

[Hugh Damright]

The 1850's started with Fugitive Slave acts. This forced everyone in the free states to become accomplices in Slavery, with the Federal government threatening fines or jail to those who did not cooperate.

The Fugitive Slave Acts were passed to enforce a provision of the US Constitution which said that runaway slaves must be returned. That is not something that began in the 1850's, but rather it is something that the States all consented to, and which the North then turned against.

The Dred Scott decision in 1856 ruled that a person could buy a slave in a slave state, then move to a free state and keep that slave as property! This Supreme Court decision, in effect, made the free states into slave states.

Dred Scott didn't change anything, it merely reaffirmed what had always been the situation. What do you imagine should have happened when a person traveled with his slave(s) into a "free state"? Should the slave have suddenly been free, able to stay in the State against his Master's will, etc? Don't you realize that the States would never have made such a compact? The Southern States did not want their slaves to be able to escape to the North and be free ... and the Northern States did not want the slaves to be able to escape to the North and be free.

Lincoln had left politics to go back to practicing law. The K-N act and then the Dred Scott decision infuriated him so that he re-entered the public arena.

It seems then that it was the US Constitution which infuriated him.

I respect Taney for his decision in Scott v Sandford, but then I expect the SCOTUS (President, etc) to follow the US Constitution as opposed to some sentiment.